Tale of two em­broi­deries

Kentish Gazette Canterbury & District - - Letters And Opinion -

While it would be nice to see the Bayeux Ta­pes­try again [Am­bi­tious bid to put 240ft-long Bayeux Ta­pes­try on show in city, Gazette, Jan 18], and clearly it ought to be dis­played lo­cally as it was be­lieved to have been made here, I do think we ought to re­cip­ro­cate in kind to our French friends. I sug­gest, there­fore, that we lend them in re­turn the Over­lord Em­broi­dery cur­rently and nor­mally dis­played at the D-day Mu­seum at South­sea, Portsmouth.

This would form an in­ter­est­ing coun­ter­point, with the one show­ing an in­va­sion of Eng­land from Nor­mandy that brought tyranny and op­pres­sion to the peo­ple of the coun­try and the other an in­va­sion from Eng­land to Nor­mandy bring­ing free­dom from tyranny and op­pres­sion al­most 900 years later. Bob Brit­nell, Or­chard Close, Can­ter­bury

The an­nounce­ment in last week’s Gazette that the Bayeux Ta­pes­try is likely to be sent on loan from Nor­mandy for ex­hi­bi­tion in the UK in five years time is fan­tas­tic news for those of us fas­ci­nated by our Euro­pean his­tory.

The bid by the city coun­cil to bring it to Can­ter­bury is very wel­come, and it will surely at­tract huge crowds and many tourist dol­lars wher­ever it goes. Wil­liam re­port­edly re­cu­per­ated in Can­ter­bury after the Bat­tle of Hast­ings, on his way to be crowned in London, and we could in­crease the chances of see­ing the Ta­pes­try here by mak­ing much more of our Nor­man her­itage – firstly by declar­ing that the unique cor­ner of the 1066 Nor­man motte and bai­ley cas­tle un­der St Mary Bredin School should now be sched­uled (it has al­ways been part of the al­ready sched­uled Dane John an­cient mon­u­ment) – and se­condly by plan­ning a cel­e­bra­tion of East Kent’s role in the Nor­man Con­quest by putting on a special fes­ti­val, with plays, ex­hi­bi­tions, re-en­act­ments and pageants.

Per­haps this would also ini­ti­ate a much needed shake-up of our sorely ne­glected World Her­itage Site sta­tus, and speed up recla­ma­tion of the trou­bled Dane John Gar­dens for the peo­ple of Can­ter­bury and our vis­i­tors? Can our city grasp such an op­por­tu­nity? Chris Tucker and Dick VaneWright, Can­ter­bury with “ut­ter con­tempt” just be­cause Cllr Bal­dock ac­tively pro­motes a whole­some green agenda for our se­verely con­gested and pol­luted city.

With Mr Hud­son con­tin­u­ously be­lit­tling the laud­able ef­forts of cy­clists/ walk­ers and rev­o­lu­tion­ary city coun­cil air qual­ity/pub­lic trans­port ini­tia­tives in an un­con­cealed at­tempt to ben­e­fit the fos­sil fuel and mo­tor ve­hi­cle in­dus­tries, it seems ob­vi­ous to me that it is he who clearly re­gards the ur­gent health improvements re­quired for Can­ter­bury res­i­dents as worth­less and be­neath con­sid­er­a­tion – iron­i­cally, the very def­i­ni­tion of con­tempt. Clive Wilkins-op­pler, Gar­linge Green, Petham

Mr Hud­son’s view in last weeks Gazette that Cllr Bal­dock is ap­par­ently treat­ing his vot­ers with ut­ter con­tempt strikes me as rude­ness and ig­no­rance.

Can­ter­bury is right to be iden­ti­fy­ing suit­able lo­ca­tions for the roll­out out of elec­tric ve­hi­cle charg­ing points, as this is to­day’s tech­nol­ogy which many peo­ple will be con­vert­ing to in the com­ing years.

But to as­sume that you must also have large multi-storey car parks is in­cor­rect, as the city is presently be­ing choked by large vol­umes of traf­fic which will not go away with the move to elec­tric ve­hi­cles.

He should note that there is a strong de­sire from many res­i­dents who ac­tu­ally live in the city to see a ‘mo­dal shift’ in trans­port meth­ods.

I al­ways sup­port and en­cour­age de­vel­op­ment but we must also look to pro­tect and en­hance our city.

As some­one who lives near the pro­posed Sta­tion Road West car park scheme, after some time de­lib­er­at­ing I now fully un­der­stand why peo­ple do not want this mon­stros­ity which will only fur­ther con­gest our streets.

No one is sug­gest­ing that you can’t drive to Can­ter­bury us­ing your elec­tric ve­hi­cle, but per­haps it is best to leave it at the Park and Ride.

We should al­ways be striv­ing to find bet­ter so­lu­tions to move traf­fic around Can­ter­bury and other means of bring­ing vis­i­tors into the beau­ti­ful and his­toric city with­out them also bring­ing their cars.

I be­lieve that Cllr Bal­dock is in fact look­ing out for the best in­ter­ests of the res­i­dents of North­gate and the wider city. Allen Tul­lett, Cross Street, Can­ter­bury in­di­vid­u­als [Crack down on tax havens’].

Tonight, I have watched a news item about the tremen­dous strain the NHS is cur­rently ex­pe­ri­enc­ing – pa­tients in cor­ri­dors, am­bu­lances un­able to at­tend to new calls be­cause they can­not hand pa­tients over, over­worked and de­mor­alised NHS staff.

It does not take much to work out that there might be a con­nec­tion be­tween these is­sues. Spend­ing on es­sen­tial ser­vices, like the NHS, de­pends upon a po­lit­i­cal will to raise suf­fi­cient money to fund them ad­e­quately. It ap­pears that this gov­ern­ment does not have that will, pre­fer­ring, in­stead, to blame ‘scroungers’ and an age­ing pop­u­la­tion for the dif­fi­cul­ties.

The gov­ern­ment claims to have in­creased fund­ing for the NHS, but, ob­vi­ously, not enough to meet the in­creas­ing de­mand (the UK spends less per head on health­care than France, Germany, USA, Bel­gium, Nether­lands, Aus­tria and, of course, Scan­di­na­vian coun­tries).

Stud­ies sug­gest that peo­ple are will­ing to pay more tax for de­cent ser­vices.

How­ever, they are fed up when they see multi­na­tional com­pa­nies, with highly paid ex­ec­u­tives, and some rich in­di­vid­u­als not pay­ing their fair share. Su­san Lake­man, South Can­ter­bury Road, Can­ter­bury

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.